Hi Sue/Chris/Everyone.
Sue...
Nice to hear from another pro-diaryist and I'm very envious about you getting your hands on a copy of Mrs Maybricks book. I have to say however (and no doubt Chris will know about this also) that according to the reports I've heard about the book it dosen't actually shed much light on James maybrick at all more on Florrie's life in prison. As I've posted here before Sue the book you really need to learn about James is 'Etched In Arsenic' by Trevor Christie or (to a lesser degree) 'The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick' by Bernard Ryan.
Chris...
div>
Thanks so much for the tip off about the Australian connection to the origin of the diary. So far I have read the first five pages of the forum and must say that I've found it extremely interesting. I have, despite being very much a believer in the diary, long thought that it was possible that the version of the diary that Anne Graham gave to Mike Barrett was not the original. As you and so many other people correctly point out the handwriting in the diary is of considerable concern to those of us that believe that the words were indeed written by James Maybrick. To my mind at least the story about this Steven Park may have some truth in it in the respect that the guy sounds to me to have the right kind of psychological profile for the job. If the diary that we all know (and love! HA HA HA) is a word for word copy of the ORIGINAL version then it would explain why what the diary tells us is so compelling but the provenence and the handwriting are not. The Aussie guy that tells us about Steven Park (can't recall what his name was grrr) places these events around the late 1960's. According to Anne Graham I believe she says that she did not go to Australia until 1970 but then again if Anne was indeed in cohoots with Park she probably would claim this. However the point I'm trying to make is that IF these events really did happen I believe that I am correct when I say that knowledge of the Tin matchbox was not in the public domain until 1987. If I am correct about this then it is fair to assume I feel that whoever forged the diary that we now have MUST have been copying from a manuscript or document from the period of the murders. If this is also correct then I could be right that the diary we have is NOT the original. For me the diary just contains so much that makes sense about the murders to be a fake. The psychology is pretty water tight too and the forgers have just had too much 'luck' concerning known events. Then of course there is the sheer amount of research and reading that they would have to have done to produce something like the diary. I also point out here Chris that should they have done such an amount of research why would they then deliberately fly in the face of what most books on the ripper would tell them namely that Jamnes Maybrick 'claims' in the diary to have been responsible for the Dear Boss letter. Personally I don't think that James did write the ORIGINAL Dear Boss letter but, as a killer following press reports of his deeds at the time, decided to 'adopt' the first one and send a few 'follow up's' of his own.
I believe that James WAS responsible for the letter that was written on the front of a newspaper ( the one with the Liverpool businessman story Chris) and possibly others (one in particular gave the police the address that he was living at in the Liverpool area...on checking this I found that the nearby street had James in the title...another of James's 'funny little jokes' I believe.
God, haven't I been going On! Better stop there and give you lot a chance to reply!
ALL hands on deck, prepare to repel boarders!! HA HA HA HA
Tony.
Bookmarks